IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 25 April 2017 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4060131A01 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KiT-poCiDCG for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F3A0131A02 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E812BA5; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:05:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1493107559; bh=Dbk9PWWecBjIfJArKSRC21lZd0Cd2hlO45aPosxnSZI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ekEjWL+CqOxb3xlt+cPci3hONNSt8R9Mzs+lW8mJK8EHgOEaHzrzvIm0ybF2oxqeR piGbbml4RCabGz0MtzfSF6kCWNzSphf1g+awR2buANIvRfyRx0C2mEyjOTU0eC0/Uu CmU/rvrb/IRMqfvD/5bKyLGHJ0WPhWHVPSUOjjxY=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5D6A4; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:05:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:05:59 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20393_1493106881_58FF00C1_20393_19903_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CCAEB1@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704251000070.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com> <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com> <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net> <D51D6AD2.A9795%acee@cisco.com> <CAL9jLaa1UQ5A1FwRKVw5RJCBQO+0j0BW4vUNaPXHB0_JB0j76Q@mail.gmail.com> <1058_1493105140_58FEF9F4_1058_786_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CCAD43@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704250930500.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20393_1493106881_58FF00C1_20393_19903_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CCAEB1@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wLy87aCV5Ud5GespW2Yv8eyLvN4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:06:04 -0000

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:

> > From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]  > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:33 AM
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> >
> > > If this is indeed the goal to make no protocol change, including no
> > > default behavior change in the protocol, could the document be updated
> > > to state this. In which case, Standard Track may be required.
> >
> > I re-read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
> >
> > As far as I can see, it doesn't do any protocol change. It changes the
> > default behaviour a router comes with when it comes to treating routes
> > sent/received when there is no policy map applied on the neighbor.
> >
> > So it suggest a behavioural change, not a protocol change.
>
> So we now have 3 readings:
> - protocol change updating RFC 4271 (base BGP spec)

Change? As far as I can see, 4271 has nothing on route-policy (just 
reading the TOC). So it seems to me that this would be an addition, not a 
change. Or am I mistaken? So this doesn't seem correct.

> - a behavioural change, not a protocol change

I agree with this.

> - no default behavior change in the protocol

Protocol, no. For me protocol is what goes on-wire, what goes into the 
statemachine, route selection etc.

This is a change in what is the default policy when none is explicitly 
configured. I can't find anything in 4271 that talks about this. So it's 
not a change per se, it's an addition and it's more operational than 
protocol change of behaviour.

So really, this is GROW stuff. It's not necessarily touching core BGP 
protocol documents, unless we absolutely want to.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/grow/about/

"(v). Document the operational aspects of securing the Internet routing 
system, and provide recommendations to other WGs."

So this is exactly what's happening as far as I can tell.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email